Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[WildCat]

A lot of people don't agree that exposing government cover-ups is the act of a traitor. Some people believe it can be the act of a patriot. The difference is when the cover ups are directed toward keeping things secret from the US public rather than from the enemy.

Cool, but Manning didn't uncover any coverups.

 

[Sabrina]

Also of note is that whatever sentence Manning receives will be reduced by 112 days to account for the period of time when he was confined in an extremely strict manner (the suicide watch days). It's also possible that whatever sentence he receives will account for the total time he's already served.

I'll post my thoughts on the whole deal later; meeting at work right now.

 

[Dessi]

I see that Bradley Manning has pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred U.S. government secrets, and could get 20 years in prison for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks that described U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere

Here's a nice table of average sentencing lengths for various offenses:

      Average sentence length for offenses between 2008-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Category                    Years
Murder                      23.5
Sexual Offenses             11.9
Robbery                     8.2
Violent Personal Crimes     4.3
Burglary                    4.6
Theft, Forgery, Fraud       2.3
Drug Offenses               3.0
Weapon Offenses             3.3
Other Offenses              2.5

10-20 years is probably the heaviest sentence I've ever seen for a crime which caused exactly no loss of life, nor loss of property, nor loss of capital, nor suffering, nor tangible harm to any identifiable entity, nor even "aiding the enemy" (as near as I can tell, the US is not at war with Wikileaks, nor does Wikileaks aid or work for the enemy).

I would argue the excessive sentence violates Mannings 8th Amendment protections regarding Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and being detained for 3+ years has already infringed on his 6th amendement right to speedy trial.

Manning is not a credible threat to the United States, and he's already been humiliated on a national level. Appropriate punishment here is dishonorable discharge and time served.

 

[WildCat]

Here's a nice table of average sentencing lengths for various offenses:

      Average sentence length for offenses between 2008-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Category                    Years
Murder                      23.5
Sexual Offenses             11.9
Robbery                     8.2
Violent Personal Crimes     4.3
Burglary                    4.6
Theft, Forgery, Fraud       2.3
Drug Offenses               3.0
Weapon Offenses             3.3
Other Offenses              2.5

10-20 years is probably the heaviest sentence I've ever seen for a crime which caused exactly no loss of life, nor loss of property, nor loss of capital, nor suffering, nor tangible harm to any identifiable entity, nor even "aiding the enemy" (as near as I can tell, the US is not at war with Wikileaks).

I would argue the excessive sentence violates Mannings 8th Amendment protections regarding Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and being detained for 3+ years has already infringed on his 6th amendement right to speedy trial.

Manning is not a credible threat to the United States, and he's already been humiliated on a national level. Appropriate punishment here is dishonorable discharge and time served.

No harm in grabbing all the classified docs you can get your hands on and letting them loose in the wild?

And odd you left out average sentences for espionage in your chart, isn't it?

I know Manning has become something of a celebrated cause in the GLBT community, but this really isn't a gay rights issue. It really is just an espionage issue.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Here's a nice table of average sentencing lengths for various offenses:

      Average sentence length for offenses between 2008-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Category                    Years
Murder                      23.5
Sexual Offenses             11.9
Robbery                     8.2
Violent Personal Crimes     4.3
Burglary                    4.6
Theft, Forgery, Fraud       2.3
Drug Offenses               3.0
Weapon Offenses             3.3
Other Offenses              2.5

10-20 years is probably the heaviest sentence I've ever seen for a crime which caused exactly no loss of life, nor loss of property, nor loss of capital, nor suffering, nor tangible harm to any identifiable entity, nor even "aiding the enemy" (as near as I can tell, the US is not at war with Wikileaks).

I would argue the excessive sentence violates Mannings 8th Amendment protections regarding Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and being detained for 3+ years has already infringed on his 6th amendement right to speedy trial.

Manning is not a credible threat to the United States, and he's already been humiliated on a national level. Appropriate punishment here is dishonorable discharge and time served.

Considering that what he did has a possibility of carrying the Death Sentence (Espionage is a step down from Treason) and I am sure that in a few moments someone will be along to claim that people did get killed, or at least their lives were put in danger by the leaks, 20 years is actually pretty lenient.

 

[WildCat]

The Rosenbergs never got anyone killed, why wasn't their public humiliation enough?

 

[The Big Dog]

I would argue the excessive sentence violates Mannings 8th Amendment protections regarding Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and being detained for 3+ years has already infringed on his 6th amendement right to speedy trial.

Manning is not a credible threat to the United States, and he's already been humiliated on a national level. Appropriate punishment here is dishonorable discharge and time served.

Well, while you might argue about the speedy trial issue, Manning will not be, seeing as how he's waived his right to appeal that issue.

Further, as discussed, there is evidence that Osama Bin Laden sought and obtained copies of the leaked materials.

I also note that one of the purposes of criminal sentences is deterrence.

Brad took it upon himself to pass sentence on the merits of the information he was stealing, kinda hard to find sympathy for him here.

 

[Cylinder]

Part of me feels sorry for the kid. He'll probably spend most of his adult life in prison. There's no mistaking that he had fair warning on the potential consequences of his actions both at DITC and during his continuing training.

 

[Aoidoi]

Further, as discussed, there is evidence that Osama Bin Laden sought and obtained copies of the leaked materials.

I wonder if Hugh Hefner is also in danger of prosecution.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Other famous spies and their sentences (names are off the top of my head but the sentences are not, I'm sure that I missed a few):

Aldrich Ames - Life in prison
Jonathan Pollard - Life in prison (eligible for parole in 2015)
Julius and Ethel Rosenburg - Death
Morton Sobell - 30 years (18 years served)
John Walker - Life in prison (currently expected to be released after 30 years)
Michael Walker - 15 years (served) as part of a plea bargain by his father
Jerry Whitworth - 365 years

So yeah, 20 years with possibility of parole in 10 is pretty lenient considering the charges. Michael Walkers sentence was only so short because his fathers plea deal included a shorter sentence for his son.

 

[Sabrina]

Here's a nice table of average sentencing lengths for various offenses:

      Average sentence length for offenses between 2008-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Category                    Years
Murder                      23.5
Sexual Offenses             11.9
Robbery                     8.2
Violent Personal Crimes     4.3
Burglary                    4.6
Theft, Forgery, Fraud       2.3
Drug Offenses               3.0
Weapon Offenses             3.3
Other Offenses              2.5

10-20 years is probably the heaviest sentence I've ever seen for a crime which caused exactly no loss of life, nor loss of property, nor loss of capital, nor suffering, nor tangible harm to any identifiable entity, nor even "aiding the enemy" (as near as I can tell, the US is not at war with Wikileaks, nor does Wikileaks aid or work for the enemy).

I would argue the excessive sentence violates Mannings 8th Amendment protections regarding Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and being detained for 3+ years has already infringed on his 6th amendement right to speedy trial.

Manning is not a credible threat to the United States, and he's already been humiliated on a national level. Appropriate punishment here is dishonorable discharge and time served.

A judge has already ruled that due to the complexity of the case, Manning's right to a speedy trial has not been violated, so that argument is out.

The issue here is that Manning swore an oath, and his actions violated that oath. I'm not about to debate the merits of the harm he may or may not have caused; that's for the lawyers. But speaking as a member of the same organization that Manning is currently a member of, the possible sentence is absolutely valid. Of note is that it is the MAXIMUM possible sentence; in other words, once sentencing is carried out on the charges he has pled guilty to, the total amount of time will likely be much less than twenty years, and as I stated above, his time served will be taken into account. But again the issue here is the oath that Manning took, that he knowingly and deliberately violated, and that under other circumstances very well could have caused harm to the US and its interests.

I think part of the problem here, Dessi, is that you're conflating US Laws with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which are two entirely separate legal systems. In certain circumstances, it is entirely possible to try someone under both systems (i.e. a soldier commits murder off base of a civilian or fellow soldier; he could conceivably be charged under US Federal law as well as the UCMJ for the crime). Manning is being tried under the UCMJ for multiple counts, the worst of which is aiding the enemy; he is NOT being tried under the US legal system. Now bear in mind; Wikileaks as an entity is not considered to be the enemy in this case, and no arguments are being made that they are to my knowledge (barring the posturing by certain political representatives of course). The foreign interests who can and do access Wikileaks and who may have interests counter to those of the US CAN be considered the enemy; the trick will lie in whether it can be determined that Manning provided the information KNOWING that the enemies of the US would then be able to access it. The text of the actual punitive article is as follows:

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Elements.

(1) Aiding the enemy.

(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and

(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.

(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;

(b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;

(b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and

(c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.

(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy. (a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and (b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.
(5) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;

(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

Explanation.

(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.

(2) Enemy. For a discussion of “enemy,” see paragraph - 23c(1)(b).

(3) Aiding or attempting to aid the enemy. It is not a violation of this article to furnish prisoners of war subsistence, quarters, and other comforts or aid to which they are lawfully entitled.

(4) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. An enemy is harbored or protected when, without proper authority, that enemy is shielded, either physically or by use of any artifice, aid, or representation from any injury or misfortune which in the chance of war may occur.

(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy. (a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means. (b) Intelligence. “Intelligence” imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part. (c) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(6) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also - paragraph 29c(3).

(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(c) Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.

Lesser included offense.

For harboring or protecting the enemy, giving intelligence to the enemy, or communicating with the enemy. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct

I highlighted and bolded the relevant parts related to this case. The long and the short of it is, Manning took an oath. He violated that oath. There are consequences to violating that oath, and while I highly doubt that the prosecution would seek the maximum punishment, a definite argument can be made that Manning indirectly aided the enemy by his actions. IANAL, but I find it hard to understand how anyone can argue differently when you read the actual text of the article in question. But then, that's just my opinion.

 

[joesixpack]

Cool, but Manning didn't uncover any coverups.

Well, if nothing he released to wikileaks was a secret, then what was the problem?

 

[Sabrina]

Well, if nothing he released to wikileaks was a secret, then what was the problem?

The documentation was classified and therefore had the potential to cause harm to the US or its interests. That's why we have the classification system; to safeguard information that can potentially harm the US or its interests if it is known to the general public.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm sorry did I mention quite clearly that it was my own personal opinion? Yes, in fact I did. And no I don't think that the fact that Poor Brad was treated infinitely better than some of his comrades in Afghanistan is "political." Hell, I think rather than denying him his pillow, they should have given him equipment and assigned him to land mine removal in Afghanistan.

But I get it: I hereby stipulate that Skeptic Ginger thinks my personal opinion is wrong. Thumbs Up!

You seem to be confusing a matter of fact with a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

Whether Manning's treatment was nice, or was justified, or was moral, is a matter of opinion. People can quite legitimately have different judgments about his treatment.

Whether Manning's treatment was exaggerated is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Either his treatment was reported accurately or it was not. You have stated that you hold a factual belief about the matter, but when asked for your evidence have hidden behind "It's just my opinion!". No, it's not just your opinion, it's your factual claim. If you hold a factual claim in the absence of any relevant evidence then you are behaving irrationally, and if you do so on these forums you should expect to be called on it.

Just as Manning signed up for the UCMJ, you signed up for the JREF forums.

 

[Peephole]

I am sure that in a few moments someone will be along to claim that people did get killed, or at least their lives were put in danger by the leaks.

Nobody ever at any point offered any proof for that claim.

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

“So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.
“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well, if nothing he released to wikileaks was a secret, then what was the problem?

I like how you conflated coverups with secrets.

Classified information is classified information regardless of its content. It was well above Mannings paygrade to decide what is or is not classified or what should or should not be released or disclosed to the public. The very nature of his crime (a document dump of classified materials) also made it a certainty that he couldn't possibly know exactly what he was releasing or what the possible short or long term consequences to others by releasing it might be. That is "The problem" as you put it.

 

[joesixpack]

I like how you conflated coverups with secrets.

Classified information is classified information regardless of its content. It was well above Mannings paygrade to decide what is or is not classified or what should or should not be released or disclosed to the public. The very nature of his crime (a document dump of classified materials) also made it a certainty that he couldn't possibly know exactly what he was releasing or what the possible short or long term consequences to others by releasing it might be. That is "The problem" as you put it.

And yet, the Pentagon Papers were released to the press with no such repercussions. There was absolutely nothing related to operational security released that amounted to a hill of beans. The Army is upset because they're embarrassed and nothing else.

 

[The Big Dog]

You seem to be confusing a matter of fact with a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

Whether Manning's treatment was nice, or was justified, or was moral, is a matter of opinion. People can quite legitimately have different judgments about his treatment.

Whether Manning's treatment was exaggerated is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Either his treatment was reported accurately or it was not. You have stated that you hold a factual belief about the matter, but when asked for your evidence have hidden behind "It's just my opinion!". No, it's not just your opinion, it's your factual claim. If you hold a factual claim in the absence of any relevant evidence then you are behaving irrationally, and if you do so on these forums you should expect to be called on it.

Just as Manning signed up for the UCMJ, you signed up for the JREF forums.

You think my opinion of whether something was exaggerated or not was a matter of "fact"? Fantastic.

Fact: ON January 31, 2011, Brad was on Prevention of Injury (POI) status. POI status is one stop short of suicide watch, entailing checks by guards every five minutes. His lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney, said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and was made to stand or sit up if he tried to.

Fact: On January 31, 2011, Specialist Omar Soltero, age 28, was killed in Wardak Province, Afghanistan from wounds sustained in a improvised explosive device attack. Soltero's awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terror Service Medal, the Non-commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the NATO Medal, the Ranger Tab, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Parachutist Badge and the Air Assault Badge. Soltero is survived by his child, mother and father.

In my opinion, I'm going to go ahead and call the hysteria over Poor Brad's treatment exaggerated.

/By the way, you signed up for JREF's forum too, take a gander at the section on address the argument not the arguer. Thanks for posting

 

[triforcharity]

The documentation was classified and therefore had the potential to cause harm to the US or its interests. That's why we have the classification system; to safeguard information that can potentially harm the US or its interests if it is known to the general public.

You're of course correct. (not that I have to tell you that... )

I have a good friend who was in the Navy, and was a submariner. I once asked him how much food a sub could carry, and how much it cost to supply a nuclear sub with food for a deployment, and he explained he couldn't discuss either of those things. Didn't make sense to me, till he explained it.

It's amazing what is considered classified. The supplier to the White House, is HIGHLY classified.

 

[WildCat]

Well, if nothing he released to wikileaks was a secret, then what was the problem?

Just because it's secret doesn't mean there's a coverup of illegal activity.

Manning isn't a whistleblower. In fact he couldn't possibly have known the contents of what he sent to wikileaks, it's far too much material.